Oh, sorry I didn’t get back to this thread. Seriously, have you read their books? It’s complete lunacy. I’ve previously posted sections fo the books, and it’s more or less made-up whole. He spewing whild accusations of orgiastic Capitalists and their wife-sharing, scheming to put down the workers.
Where he fails is that he cannot even remotely contemplate that the investor wanted good value, and some were unkind and willing to pay less, others more - and that in either case they were still providing jobs poeple were eager to get. Marx was the original wild-eyed Conspiracy Theorist, who saw all kinds of imaginary demons in the world.
Now, this is not specifically to defend early factory owners. There were certainly some who were nasty and cruel people. But that is the point. They were people, a diverse and ununified group, who often opposed each other socially, morally, and politically. Marx lumped them together in a class, attributed his darker fantasies to it, and then used that as the basis of another fantasy utopia. There is the hilarious divide between Marx and, say, Chesterton about it. Chesterton was far more clear-eyed, wiser, and humorous than Marx. He loved to mock the rich and even have favored the Socialists now and then. But he never pretended a class was the problem, or another class the solution. He saw that the though the curmudgeonly investor was deceitful in pretending that the poor were best off as they were in tenements, the Radical was at least as dishonest in wanting to stuff them all into blocky state tenements instead.
Neither of them ever though to ask the workers what he wanted, or offer him a way to get it. Eventually, the workers got more power and wealth, the investors folded to them, and the Commies mostly went the way of the dodo.
That would assume that parties on both sides represent everyone’s interests equally, and I would hope it’s blatantly obvious that they don’t. I mean, look at the Republicans back there in the States - you can’t tell me they haven’t tried to dress up some truly distasteful policies with populist appeal. Same thing in Sweden. Hell, there’s a party with documented ties to Nazi organizations over here - the Sweden Democrats - who are putting out slick (taxpayer-funded) election materials with slogans that sound, on the surface, patently reasonable and inoffensive. But they’re thoroughgoing racists of the worst sort. It is disingenuous to think it’s “what the people want” should any of these bastards actually get elected to Parliament this Sunday, because the SD is being anything but straightforward and honest in their campaigning.
And how, may I ask, is democracy preserved when a political system allows for parties whose specific aim is the elimination of democracy?
Protection of personal rights and freedoms, including the right to free speech and the freedom of association. Yes, that permits nutters to push their anti-democratic agendas, but it also permits the very severe problems with the nutters’ agendas to be brought to light. That way the people can decide for themselves if ideologies such as communism are useful or simply terribly destructive dead ends.
The impression I get is that functioning democracies that manage to survive dissident elements don’t count but hypothetical communist regimes that magically have no dissidents do.
The problem in my area, is that we have five different garbage companies picking up garbage to the same street. I live twenty miles from town, and that is an incredible waste of gas. Ultimately, it raises the price of gas I have to pay at the pump not to mention the emissions of your standard garbage truck are terrible.
Of course your solution, to start my own garbage service, would only make the problem worse.
No, the solution would be to engineer a garbage truck that can run on biofuel more efficiently than regular garbage trucks. Success requires innovation. You can’t succeed if you just lazily copy what others in the market do.
How is an engineering solution magic? If you don’t have the intelligence or training to make it work, or the ability to run a business more efficiently than your competitors, then your business should fail. Too bad.
You know what a magical solution would be? Communism.
It’s magic to believe that an engineering solution exists without actually doing the work yourself to prove it. It’s really no different from me telling you to engineer a solution to turn invisible and rob Fort Nox.
The problem is, that until you engineer such a solution, the privatized garbage collectors are making life worse for everyone.
Of course I would agree that, like libertarianism, communism is magic.
Then we are in partial agreement. But under a capitalist system, there’s is an incentive to actually try to improve things. There’s a reason to go out and try, even if you will most certainly fail. I’m not convinced an incentive to do so exists in a communist system. In a capitalist system, if a thousand people thought they could improve garbage collection and make a profit, then you have a thousand people trying to do just so. But in a communist system, you would have only as many people that the state deems necessary.
But we still haven’t explained how the free market fairy will solve the problem of five garbage trucks driving effectively the same route for long distances. This was the problem posed to Smiling Bandit. It is a problem easily solved by implementing a single garbage collection agency.
But is the problem really with the five garbage collection companies, or is it more complicated than that? You complain of rising fuel prices and pollution. If those were taken care of by cheap, clean fuel, then would having multiple companies really be a problem? If the state proclaims that only one garbage company could work that route, and then designated it to the worst possible company, is that really a solution?
It would indeed be better if a cheap and clean fuel were available. In that case, I can see no reason that multiple companies would be a problem. In fact, lacking any other complexities, the free market is always the way to go. But a cheap and clean fuel does not exist, and nothing is on the horizon.
It is better than the status quo. Perhaps a better solution is to divide up the routes among the existing garbage services. This way, if one company does drop the ball, you have secondary companies to go to. Meanwhile all of the companies save on gas and wear and tear on the vehicles. They all need fewer employees and have fewer overall expenses.